What would you do?

[+Jayeffel]

There is a new cache out in a park developed from an old farm. The cache is listed as a Multi with two separate stages/containers. On the Geocaching website info it states there are two parts, and gives an idea of what to look for at each location. A hint that works for both is provided. As of now, four cachers have logged visits, two Found and two DNF, I was one of the latter. The other three cachers have way more experience or finding and placing caches that I have. Under waypoints both caches are shown with coordinates. I did not see them the first time I looked at the page, and was not aware they showed on the iPhone app until way too late. 

 

There are two problems involved with the cache. One is that two have not located the second part after long search. Okay, we may just missed it. 

 

The main problem is why I ask "What would you do" . The cache is listed as a multi, but the first cache is place has a log and a trackable, no info about the second part. The second part is placed as a separate cache, apparently with its own log, that I cannot confirm since I have not located that cache. Both cachers with Found logs and the other DNF cachers  mentioned the caches did not fit the multi cache guidelines, they are two separate traditional caches. I agree. 

 

BUT, in order to correct this ( if correction is needed) one method would be to make them separate caches with two cache numbers; but they are too close together to do this -- at the most maybe 150 feet apart. Another cacher suggested it first, and I sent a message to the CO, about making it a true multi -- removing both waypoints from the Geocaching website cache page, since the coordinates already show what the first waypoint shows. Then remove the log from the first container and place it in the second one, remove any other log, or keep the log in the second if cachers logged a find and toss the one from the first container. Then place info about  the second container/cache in the first container. 

 

I suggested that way because it could cause confusion. The first part is fairly easy to find with a log, if logged does that mean the cache is found , since there is no way to log half a find? If I find the first part and not the second it a valid find? If I do find both and sign two logs I log one find? That would be the only way due to the cache set up. 

 

I guess the second container could be moved to another spot at least 528 feet away, making a separate cache but that would defeat the CO's  idea. That would allow two separate traditional caches. 

 

I know there are more things to worry about, but just wondering how other cachers would handle this. By the way, the CO has 10 finds since joined Premium in November.

 

I hope this all is all I have to worry about today!

[+arisoft]

What I would do depends on what did you find from the posted coordinates. To be a multi-cache you must be able to find something from there.

[+Jayeffel]

30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What I would do depends on what did you find from the posted coordinates. To be a multi-cache you must be able to find something from there.

That is a big part of the question. As set up a cacher should be able to find either one without any need for the other.  The first cache has a typical found log to sign and a listed trackable, no reference to or info to the second. The CO posted two waypoints , one to each cache spot, the first set is the coordinates shown on the Geocaching.com  webpage info. A person can now go to either set log coordinates to find either placed container without going to the other, and presumably find a log in either -- I do not know that since I have not found the second one. I may look again this morning but I have a lot to do.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

That is a big part of the question. As set up a cacher should be able to find either one without any need for the other.

 

There is only one "posted coordinates" on the cache descriptions at the top of the page. Is either of the waypoints at the bottom of the page the same as the top one?

[+cerberus1]

Guess I don't understand why this is a problem...

If the CO placed a "multi" with the first "cache" (not a stage...) having a log and a trackable in it, write a NM and move on.

[+Jayeffel]

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

There is only one "posted coordinates" on the cache descriptions at the top of the page. Is either of the waypoints at the bottom of the page the same as the top one?

Yes, the one waypoint Four Square is the same coordinate as the one on the description page, and is the first cache. The other one Rock Kiln is the second cache. 

 

I went back today, despite having too much to do, and looked all over the place for the second cache.

 

I am sure by reading the first two logs that the first two finders -- who usually cache together - actually found the second part. I can easily ask, they won't bite.

[+GeoElmo6000]

You're in Keystone territory, right?  Why not ask him?

[+cerberus1]

45 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

I am sure by reading the first two logs that the first two finders -- who usually cache together - actually found the second part. I can easily ask, they won't bite.

 

Curious, didn't others leave a NM?    If not, it'd be fun to see (when you ask) why they feel a multi that isn't is okay.  Thanks.

We see people logging pieces of velcro, and tops to caches no longer there, so just curious if this is "a smiley is a smiley" thing that's ever gonna get fixed.   

[+Jayeffel]

2 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

You're in Keystone territory, right?  Why not ask him?

Kind of leery  about that approach, the CO may loose a cache. Trying to do it an easier way. If not, then not that big of a deal.

 

If I had found the second part and saw a log then there would be two logs with one cache. If no log then it is a backwards multi-- log in  #1 and just locate #2.

 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On 3/7/2022 at 12:25 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

You're in Keystone territory, right?  Why not ask him?

 

 

On 3/7/2022 at 2:31 PM, Jayeffel said:

Kind of leery  about that approach, the CO may loose a cache. Trying to do it an easier way. If not, then not that big of a deal.

 

If I had found the second part and saw a log then there would be two logs with one cache. If no log then it is a backwards multi-- log in  #1 and just locate #2.

 

 

 

Whoops. He reads the stuff posted here. Probably has already.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If the CO is an experienced cacher I would probably message them explaining my confusion. Maybe they goofed up the listing or I am misunderstanding.

 

If it was a newbie (or the CO was unresponsive) I would message the Reviewer and explain the situation so they could handle it.

[+CheekyBrit]

All good ideas. In your NM log you could say that both stages are visible. Imply they meant to have one of the stages 'hidden' on the page listing and the coordinates (or some other puzzle) in the other. It sounds like stage 1 might be the intended final. a bit of editing and checking to see if the coordinates for one stage are in the other and this should be ready to go. The cache owner either knows what they're doing and made an honest mistake -( I make a lot of those), or the cache owner did their best and didn't know fully how to build a multi cache yet. In either scenario a Needs Maintenance log, flagging up the issue and solution will help, especially if worded well to avoid patronizing interpretations. I need a lot of practice on that last part.

[+Jayeffel]

An Update : As of today there have been 12 logs filed on the geocaching.com cache page; the first two finds with no second stage found apparently, then my 1st DNF. The another DNF which due to no response from the CO was changed to found, then my 2nd DNF which I also changed due to finding what was there. Then a few finds but stating they saw no second stage, and then another found first stage. The last wrote a NM log.

 

It may very well be there is no second container but the description and hints says there is one.

 

An idea just popped into mind, just maybe the second stage has not yet been placed. Yes, should have been before being published.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jayeffel

[Keystone]

The two stages were originally submitted as separate traditionals. They couldn’t be published that way due to the cache saturation guideline, so the owner took my suggestion to combine the two locations into a multicache. I’ll agree, there are more complex multicaches. 

[+Jayeffel]

Thanks, only #2 has not been  located so far. 

 

I was wondering how the cache as described and placed was okayed and published. Just did not seem to fit somehow. Maybe #2 is there and just escaped detection is far.

 

 

[+arisoft]

53 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

I was wondering how the cache as described and placed was okayed and published. Just did not seem to fit somehow.

 

May be it is just a false anticipation?

 

Quote

Multi-Caches include at least one stage in addition to the physical final container with a logbook👌. The posted coordinates for a Multi-Cache are the first stage👌. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container👌.

 

It seems to meet all requirements.

[+ChriBli]

On 3/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, arisoft said:

There is only one "posted coordinates" on the cache descriptions at the top of the page. Is either of the waypoints at the bottom of the page the same as the top one?

 

On 3/7/2022 at 5:39 PM, Jayeffel said:

Yes, the one waypoint Four Square is the same coordinate as the one on the description page, and is the first cache. The other one Rock Kiln is the second cache. 

I went back today, despite having too much to do, and looked all over the place for the second cache.

So the posted coordinates point to the first cache, this has been found and contains a logbook but no information that can lead to the second cache.

 

42 minutes ago, arisoft said:

  Quote

Multi-Caches include at least one stage in addition to the physical final container with a logbook👌. The posted coordinates for a Multi-Cache are the first stage👌. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container👌.

These requirements don't explicitly say that there can't be a logbook at each stage, nor do they prevent posting of additional waypoints to all stages including the final one. But it is required that something can be found at the first stage that leads to the next stage. That is apparently not the case here.

[+baer2006]

40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It seems to meet all requirements.

... of a Traditional!

 

Multi requirements are (roughly):

- At the listed coordinates you find information  on where to go next

- (0 or more additional stages)

- A final location with a container and logbook.

Having a container with logbook at the posted coordinates, plus another waypoint (where probably another container+logbook should be), doesn't make it a multi-cache IMHO. At best, it's a traditional with some kind of "optional additional location + cache".

 

I remember a somewhat similar situation in my home zone a while ago. A newbie had placed a multi-cache, and I headed out to try for FTF. I had noticed that in the listing, the word "cache" was sometimes used, when the standard terminology would have been "stage", but I've seen/heard this before from newbies, so it didn't really bother me. At the listed coordinates, I found a container with a logbook and coordinates for stage 2. Same at stage 2 and 3. At stage 4 the container was slightly larger, had a logbook and no further coordinates. It didn't help, that the total number of stages was unclear - at various points in the listing, it said either 3, 4 or 5! Anyway, I assumed that "stage 4" was the final, so I logged my FTF, describing my confusion in the online log. Turned out, that I had indeed found the final, so my log could stand. The CO then fixed some of the issues, but not without logging a note with a snide remark towards me, saying something like "I thought that an experienced cacher with thousands of finds would know how a multi works, and not complain so much" .

[+Jayeffel]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

May be it is just a false anticipation?

 

 

It seems to meet all requirements.

So far it seems there is no final container, unless one is found I think that is the consensus. See reviews note above, it may just be a misunderstanding I of some sort by the CO.  It will, interesting to see how this all works out. I know two or three ways but I am not the CO.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, ChriBli said:

But it is required that something can be found at the first stage that leads to the next stage. That is apparently not the case here.

 

"leads them to the next stage or to the final container"

 

For me findings from the posted coordinates leads to the final container.

 

I have found a multi-cache where the final container was at the posted coordinates. There was also a hint to the second stage that leads back to the posted coordinates.

 

 

5 hours ago, ChriBli said:

So the posted coordinates point to the first cache, this has been found and contains a logbook but no information that can lead to the second cache.

 

Coordinates may be available on the description as an additional waypoint. There is no rule that player must visit all stages.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I did a multi that had an ammo can and log book at both locations. The cache was called 'Kids and Parents', or something like that. The first stage had kid friendly swag, while the swag at the second, and final stage, was targeted more for parents. Think cheap tools, and the like. Kids could sign the first logbook, while parents would sign the second, using they geocaching name.

[+ChriBli]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

"leads them to the next stage or to the final container"

For me findings from the posted coordinates leads to the final container.

I have found a multi-cache where the final container was at the posted coordinates. There was also a hint to the second stage that leads back to the posted coordinates.

 

Coordinates may be available on the description as an additional waypoint. There is no rule that player must visit all stages.

Yes, I omitted the "or to the final container" for simplicitly. The final container could be considered to be the next stage, that's just semantics.

 

But that's not the point. I was merely pointing out that the cache in question does not seem to fulfill the requirements you quoted. The posted coordinates (not any additional waypoint) points to the first stage. There is no information to gather at that first stage that leads to the next stage, nor to the final container.

 

Note the difference compared to the other multi you use as an example. In that case there is information at the posted coordinates that leads to the next stage, and there there's information that leads to the final container which also happens to be at the posted coordinates. Presumably the container is hidden in a way that makes it not easily found at the first visit, otherwise the whole thing seems pretty pointless. But in line with the requirements, nevertheless.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

20 hours ago, ChriBli said:

<...>

 

Note the difference compared to the other multi you use as an example. In that case there is information at the posted coordinates that leads to the next stage, and there there's information that leads to the final container which also happens to be at the posted coordinates. Presumably the container is hidden in a way that makes it not easily found at the first visit, otherwise the whole thing seems pretty pointless. But in line with the requirements, nevertheless.

 

 

I remember reading here in the fora a couple/three years ago of a multicache where Stage One was in the top of a hollow in a stump. Clues lead you to Stage Two, which instructed you to navigate back to the stump, where you would lift out the fake platform upon which Stage One sat.

 

That's awesome. Anyone remember where that was?

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by TeamRabbitRun

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I remember reading here in the fora a couple/three years ago of a multicache where Stage One was in the top of a hollow in a stump. Clues lead you to Stage Two, which instructed you to navigate back to the stump, where you would lift out the fake platform upon which Stage One sat.

I haven't seen that one, but I have seen an offset cache where the calculated distance between the first stage and the final was just a few feet. I could touch the plaque for the first stage and the container for the final at the same time.